Stephen A. Lenn and Ksenia Lenn - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         

          lack the proximate relationship to the claimed illness to qualify           
          as an expense for medical care.                                             
               Petitioners contend that the question of whether a direct or           
          proximate relationship exists depends on the taxpayer's dominant            
          motivation in incurring the expense.  Petitioner relies on the              
          standard of a proximate relationship used in the context of                 
          determining whether a bad debt is connected to a taxpayer's                 
          business, i.e., what the taxpayer's dominant motivation was in              
          incurring the debt that resulted in the bad debt, citing United             
          States v. Generes, 405 U.S. 93 (1972).  Petitioner contends that            
          his dominant motivation in initiating the legal proceedings                 
          against the Portland School District was to secure funding for              
          Daniel's treatment at Eagle Hill.  Accordingly, petitioner                  
          maintains that the legal expenses satisfy the dominant motivation           
          test set forth in Generes and are therefore proximately related             
          to Daniel's medical care.  Petitioner also argues that the legal            
          expenses are deductible as medical expenses under the origin of             
          claim doctrine.  Petitioner maintains that he commenced the legal           
          action to obtain medical care for his son, and thus the origin of           
          the legal expenses is the treatment of Daniel's disability.  The            
          dominant motivation test and the origin of claim doctrine cited             
          by petitioner are in some respects similar to the second part of            
          the Jacobs test, that the expenses would not have been incurred             
          for nonmedical reasons.                                                     
               In this case, petitioner might satisfy the second portion of           
          the Jacobs test that he would not have incurred the legal                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011